Democratic lawmakers and union members warned of a rise in “cronyism, bias, nepotism and general unfairness” if the Civil Service Commission enacts proposed changes to the civil service system.

They spoke at a public hearing Wednesday as the commission considers new rules that would give managers in state government greater flexibility in deciding who to promote. The changes would create “job bands” – groups of jobs that would allow government workers to advance from one job within the band to another without taking a civil service test or competing with other prospective applicants.

All 170,000 employees in New Jersey’s civil service system could potentially be affected.

“The new approach will certainly lead to political patronage and favoritism,” said state Sen. Linda Greenstein, D-Middlesex. “This proposal eliminates the one objective measure of a worker’s ability: the civil service examination.”

Under the new rules, public employees would still have to take a civil service exam before they are initially hired. But after that first test, managers would have much more freedom to move workers to other jobs, as long as they are not moving outside their band. The rules do not specify how many jobs would be included in each band or which government jobs would be included in the banding system.

Scores of union members and workers’ rights activists turned out for Wednesday’s public hearing to oppose the changes.

“Under the new rules, the system will be more vulnerable to favoritism, patronage and an increasing lack of diversity in management. Even the most well-intentioned among us would be vulnerable to choosing a friend or someone who reminds us of ourselves,” said T.J. Helmstetter, communications director for the gay rights organization Garden State Equality. He added that the current system, with its reliance on exams, has promoted diversity in government jobs.

The Civil Service Commission’s document listing the rule changes – which runs nearly 100 pages – suggests they aim to improve flexibility for managers, allow open jobs to be filled more quickly and save money for the commission.

Peter Lyden, the commission’s communications manager, declined to comment on the advantages of the proposal. But he emphasized that the changes were not finalized.

“These are only proposed rule changes under consideration by the Civil Service Commission, and we will continue to solicit input from the public and stakeholders to help better inform the process,” he said via email. “The Civil Service Commission plans to take any feedback or concerns into consideration before taking any action on this rule proposal.”

Speakers at Wednesday’s hearing – which the civil service commissioners did not attend, sending a commission hearing officer instead – were unanimously opposed to the proposal.

“I would urge the commission to table these radical changes,” said Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-Mercer, who added that she was upset Governor Christie’s administration did not try to make the changes through legislation instead.

Christie’s office declined to comment on the proposal.

The changes come more than two years after Christie conditionally vetoed legislation that would have altered the civil service system by allowing managers to move employees between departments. The bill also would have created a task force charged with giving government more flexibility by reducing the number of employee titles. In his veto message, the Republican governor said those changes did not go far enough. He said towns should be able to opt out of the civil service system entirely through voter referendum.

The public comment period for the proposal continues until May 17, although no more public hearings are scheduled. Lyden said he did not know when the full commission will vote on the proposal.

Union representatives said they were unhappy their only opportunity for comment was one meeting on a weekday afternoon.

“The proposal before you today is not being negotiated. It’s being railroaded,” said Eric Richard, of the New Jersey AFL-CIO.

Hetty Rosenstein, state director for CWA NJ, said past rule changes were preceded by multiple hearings held around the state in the evenings. She called the process for considering the current proposal “utterly abysmal.”